Antonier v. Miller
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22578 (2012)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Margaret Antonier (plaintiff) filed a claim for an accounting of a spousal trust in United States federal court against her ex-husband Robert Miller (defendant) and their two sons, Rodney Miller and Frederick Miller (defendants). Robert, Rodney, and Frederick were Canadian citizens residing in Canada, and Antonier was a Canadian citizen residing in Florida. Antonier was granted treaty investor status under an E-2 visa. Robert filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the case involved only aliens. Treaty investor status was similar to permanent residence, and under the alienage- and diversity-jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a permanent-resident alien was deemed a citizen of her state of domicile. Antonier argued that under this deeming clause she was a citizen of Florida and Robert, Rodney, and Frederick were citizens of Canada, establishing diversity jurisdiction. After Antonier filed her complaint, but before the district court issued a decision, Congress amended § 1332(a) to remove the “deemed a citizen” language. Congress instead inserted a provision stating that there was no federal diversity jurisdiction in a case involving a citizen of a state and a permanent resident domiciled in that same state.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bucklew, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.